Treatment algorithm for the management of hepatitis C in HIV-coinfected persons

Identifying and classifying indicators affected by performing clinical pathways in hospitals: a scoping review

AIM

To analyse the evidence regarding indicators affected by clinical pathways (CPW) in hospitals and offer suggestions for conducting comprehensive systematic reviews.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic scoping review and searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Scopus, OVID, Science Direct, ProQuest, EMBASE and PubMed. We also reviewed the reference lists of included studies. The criteria for inclusion of studies included experimental and quasi-experimental studies, implementing CPW in secondary and tertiary hospitals and investigating at least one indicator. Quality of included studies was assessed by two authors independently using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program for clinical trials and cohort studies and the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool for Quasi-Experimental Studies.

RESULTS

Forty-seven out of 2191 studies met the eligibility and inclusion criteria. The majority of included studies had pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design and had been done in developed countries, especially the United States. The investigation of evidence resulted in identifying 62 indicators which were classified into three categories: input indicators, process and output indicators and outcome indicators. Outcome indicators were more frequent than other indicators. Complication rate, hospital costs and length of hospital stay were dominant in their own category. Indicators such as quality of life and adherence to guidelines have been considered in studies that were done in recent years.

CONCLUSION

Implementing CPW can affect different types of indicators such as input, process, output and outcome indicators, although outcome indicators capture more attention than other indicators. Patient-related indicators were dominant outcome indicators, whereas professional indicators and organizational factors were considered less extensively. WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT THE TOPIC?: WHAT DOES THIS ARTICLE ADD?

Antiretroviral treatment of HIV infection: Swedish recommendations 2007

On 3 previous occasions, in 2002, 2003 and 2005, the Swedish Medical Products Agency (Läkemedelsverket) and the Swedish Reference Group for Antiviral Therapy (RAV) have jointly published recommendations for the treatment of HIV infection. An expert group, under the guidance of RAV, has now revised the text again. Since the publication of the previous treatment recommendations, 1 new drug for the treatment of HIV has been approved - the protease inhibitor (PI) darunavir (Prezista). Furthermore, 3 new drugs have become available: the integrase inhibitor raltegravir (MK-0518), the CCR5-inhibitor maraviroc (Celsentri), both of which have novel mechanisms of action, and the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) etravirine (TMC-125). The new guidelines differ from the previous ones in several respects. The most important of these are that abacavir is now preferred to tenofovir and zidovudine, as a first line drug in treatment-naïve patients, and that initiation of antiretroviral treatment is now recommended before the CD4 cell count falls below 250/microl, rather than 200/microl. Furthermore, recommendations on the treatment of HIV infection in children have been added to the document. As in the case of the previous publication, recommendations are evidence-graded in accordance with the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, 2001 (see http://www.cebm.net/levels_of_evidence.asp#levels).

Clinical management of HIV/hepatitis C virus coinfection

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to review the current management of hepatitis C virus (HCV) in persons coinfected with HIV.

DATA SOURCES

Comprehensive review of current scientific literature derived from electronic databases, article bibliographies, and conference abstracts.

CONCLUSIONS

HCV treatment is feasible in the individual coinfected with HIV; however, therapy is complex and requires intensive monitoring and support to achieve the outcome of viral eradication. New strategies to improve HCV treatment rates, adherence to therapy, and virological response rates are needed in this patient population.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Nurse practitioners are crucial to the management of the HIV/HCV-coinfected patient. This patient population requires detailed clinical monitoring, education, side effect management, and strategies to improve adherence to therapy.

Pegylated IFN-alpha2b plus ribavirin for treatment-naive patients coinfected with HCV and HIV

Since 1995, after the generalization of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), HCV coinfection in patients with HIV has become a clinical problem of first magnitude. In fact, currently, HCV coinfection is the primary cause of morbi-mortality of AIDS patients in many hospitals. As a consequence, a significant number of clinical trials have been carried out during the past 8-10 years on HCV/HIV-coinfected patients, and have been coincident that the use of pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN) plus ribavirin should be now the gold standard for treating these patients. Various prospective, randomized studies have reached the conclusion that PEG-IFN-alpha(2b) plus ribavirin achieves HCV cure rates in approximately 50% of all patients, together with important clinical consequences, since hepatic illness progression stops or even reverts. Although adverse events are extremely common with this combined treatment, it is also true that their handling by experts means that only 10-15% of patients must abandon treatment.

Outcome of screening for hepatitis C virus infection based on risk factors

OBJECTIVES

Screening for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in individuals at increased risk is currently recommended by most, but not all, health authorities. This study identifies outcomes of individuals diagnosed through a screening program targeting high-risk patients.

METHODS

Veterans presenting for care in VA facilities are assessed for HCV risk factors by a questionnaire. Those with a risk factor are offered anti-HCV testing. Between October 1998 and May 2004, 25,701 patients were assessed and 8,471 patients had a risk factor for HCV. Patients diagnosed through the screening program were assessed per study protocol.

RESULTS

The prevalence of a positive HCV antibody in veterans who identified a risk factor was 7.3% (95% CI 6.6-8.0%). Among those diagnosed through the screening program (N = 260), 47% had chronic hepatitis C. Among patients with chronic HCV, 18% had evidence of advanced liver disease (stage III/IV on biopsy or clinical cirrhosis) while 34% had persistently normal alanine aminotransferase (ALT). Two-thirds of individuals who underwent liver biopsy had minimal or no fibrosis. About half (47%) of the screen-detected patients with chronic HCV were treatment candidates. Forty-four percent were not immediate candidates secondary to medical or psychiatric comorbidities or active substance abuse. Twenty-two patients (8%) had died after a median follow-up of 911 days. Two were liver-related deaths.

CONCLUSION

Screening for hepatitis C in persons at high risk can lead to early identification of individuals at risk for progressive liver disease who may benefit from antiviral therapy and counseling to reduce HCV-related liver injury.

Managing chronic hepatitis C in the difficult-to-treat patient

Patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and disease-related complications - among them cirrhosis and liver failure - pose a particular management challenge. Some of these patients may fail to respond to current therapy (non-responders), and some are affected so severely that treatment puts them at an unacceptable risk for complications. Treatment with pegylated interferon (peg-IFN) plus ribavirin improves hepatic enzyme levels and eradicates the virus in approximately 50% of patients; however, a significant number of patients do not respond to therapy or relapse following treatment discontinuation. Several viral, hepatic and patient-related factors influence response to IFN therapy; many of these factors cannot be modified to improve long-term outcomes. Identifying risk factors and measuring viral load early in the treatment can help to predict response to IFN therapy and determine the need to modify or discontinue treatment. Retreatment options for patients who have failed therapy are limited. Retreatment with peg-IFN has been successful in some patients who exhibit an inadequate response to conventional IFN treatment, particularly those who have relapsed. Consensus IFN, another option in treatment-resistant patients, has demonstrated efficacy in the retreatment of non-responders and relapsers. Although the optimal duration of retreatment and the benefits and safety of maintenance therapy have not been determined, an extended duration is likely needed. This article reviews the risk factors for HCV treatment resistance and discusses the assessment and management of difficult-to-treat patients.

Hepatitis C in the HIV-infected patient

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection in the presence of HIV raises several challenging issues for the treating clinician. Some evidence indicates that concomitant HIV infection alters HCV virology in ways that are relevant for treatment. Pegylated interferon plus ribavirin is the recommended therapy for HCV in HIV-infected patients. Proportionately fewer HIV/HCV-coinfected patients achieve a sustained virologic response (SVR) compared with those infected with HCV alone. Possible reasons for this include higher levels of HCV viremia and inadequate ribavirin exposure. Strategies under study for optimizing therapeutic response include weight-based ribavirin dosing, use of growth factors to avoid dose reduction, and longer duration of therapy. Aggressive management of adverse effects to avoid dose reduction or treatment discontinuation is also crucial. An integrated multidisciplinary team, including a psychiatrist and addictions specialist, can increase the proportion of HIV/HCV-coinfected patients eligible for treatment. Investigational options exist for patients who relapse after treatment is discontinued and for those with a partial virologic response. Promising therapies that are under development include protease and polymerase inhibitors.

Determinants of nevirapine hypersensitivity and its effect on the association between hepatitis C status and mortality in antiretroviral drug-naive HIV-positive patients

OBJECTIVE

To assess risks factors and outcomes associated with nevirapine hypersensitivity reactions, and to determine the effect of hypersensitivity as a modifier of the association between hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and mortality among antiretroviral drug-naive patients.

METHODS

The primary endpoint was hypersensitivity reactions in a population-based cohort of antiretroviral therapy-naive HIV-individuals, 18 years or older in British Columbia, Canada, who started triple antiretroviral therapy with nevirapine between May 1997 and June 2003. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictors of nonaccidental mortality in the subgroup of patients with known HCV serostatus.

RESULTS

A total of 66 (9.6%) of 685 patients met the definition for hypersensitivity reactions. In the univariate logistic regression analysis, no variables were identified as risk factors. In multivariate survival analyses conducted to identify characteristics associated with nonaccidental mortality, patients with both HCV coinfection and hypersensitivity reactions had a higher risk of death (hazard ratio, 7.12; 95% confidence interval, 2.73-18.53; P < 0.001) compared with those who did not have HCV coinfection or hypersensitivity reaction.

CONCLUSION

Results of this study suggest that the hypersensitivity reaction behaves as an effect modifier of the association between HCV infection and mortality in this cohort of antiretroviral drug-naive HIV-positive patients. These results support the current recommendation against the use of nevirapine in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients.

Hepatitis C in HIV-positive patients--treatment and liver disease outcomes

Many human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infected persons are coinfected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) and with the use of highly active antiretroviral therapy, liver disease from HCV has become an important cause of morbidity and mortality. The current guidelines recommend that human immunodeficiency virus and HCV coinfected patients be evaluated and treated for HCV if there are no major contraindications to treatment. Coinfected patients treated with pegylated interferon-a and ribavirin have sustained virologic responses (SVRs) of 27% to 40% which for a variety of reasons are lower than those reported in HCV mono-infected patients. Understanding that most patients will not achieve SVRs, strategies to evaluate for the role of maintenance interferon in delaying complications of liver disease are being evaluated. In patients who have failed prior treatment, cannot tolerate treatment, or who have contraindications to HCV treatment, the use of highly active antiretroviral therapy with careful monitoring for hepatotoxicity and aggressive counseling on alcohol and substance abuse may slow down fibrosis progression. As the data on liver transplantation in coinfected patients accumulate, patients with end stage liver disease should be referred early for evaluation in a transplant center. As new drugs for HCV are being developed, it will be of utmost importance to include coinfected patients earlier in the process on new drug trials and therapeutic strategies.

Substance abuse treatment and receipt of liver specialty care among persons coinfected with HIV/HCV who have alcohol problems

We examined the association of substance abuse treatment with access to liver specialty care among 231 persons coinfected with HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) with a history of alcohol problems who were recruited and followed up in the HIV-Longitudinal Interrelationships of Viruses and Ethanol cohort study from 2001 to 2004. Variables regarding demographics, substance use, health service use, clinical variables, and substance abuse treatment were from a standardized research questionnaire administered biannually. We defined substance abuse treatment services as any of the following in the previous 6 months: 12 weeks in a halfway house or residential facility, 12 visits to a substance abuse counselor or mental health professional, day treatment for at least 30 days, or any participation in a methadone maintenance program. Liver specialty care was defined as a visit to a liver doctor, a hepatologist, or a specialist in treating hepatitis C in the past 6 months. At study entry, most of the 231 subjects (89%, n = 205) had seen a primary care physician, 50% had been exposed to substance abuse treatment, and 50 subjects (22%) had received liver specialty care. An additional 33 subjects (14%) reported receiving liver specialty care during the follow-up period. In the multivariable model, we observed a clinically important although not statistically significant association between having been in substance abuse treatment and receiving liver specialty care (adjusted odds ratio = 1.38; 95% confidence interval = 0.9-2.11). Substance abuse treatment systems should give attention to the need of patients to receive care for prevalent treatable diseases such as HIV/HCV coinfection and facilitate its medical care to improve the quality of care for individuals with substance use disorders. The data illustrate the need for clinical care models that give explicit attention to the coordination of primary health care with addiction and hepatitis C specialty care while providing ongoing support to engage and retain these patients with complex health needs.

Improving anti-hepatitis C virus therapy

The estimated prevalence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is 2%, representing 123 million infected individuals worldwide. HCV infection burdens public health in relation to hepatic (cirrhosis and its complications in 20% of patients) and extrahepatic (vasculitis) complications, and lessens quality of life. Major progress has been made in the last two decades for the diagnosis and treatment of HCV, including more appropriate screening strategies for HCV infection (improved sensitivity of serological and virological tests); a better evaluation of the impact of chronic HCV infection on the liver (semi-quantitative scoring systems of necro-inflammation and fibrosis on liver biopsy, non-invasive evaluation of fibrosis with biochemical markers and elastometry); and improved therapeutic regimens. This progress provides a better definition of who to treat (clinical impact or significant fibrosis); how to treat; tailoring therapies for doses and durations of the pegylated interferon plus ribavirin combination according to virological (mainly genotype and early viral kinetics, but also baseline viral load) and hosts factors (fibrosis, immune status, weight); and how to monitor efficacy and tolerance of therapy. The progress has now resulted in a 50% rate of complete HCV eradication, ranging 45 - 90% according to the genotype and especially in those patients with early viral response. New therapies, specifically HCV protease or polymerase inhibitors, in combination with pegylated interferon, or more potent and less toxic new formulations of interferons or ribavirin, will increase these encouraging results in the future.